Harry Stoller and Co. v. City of Lowell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
587 N.E.2d 780 (1992)
Stoller (plaintiff) owned multiple adjacent buildings, all containing a sprinkler system. The buildings caught fire, and City of Lowell (defendant) firefighters attempted to extinguish the blaze. Contrary to accepted practice, the firefighters declined to use the buildings’ sprinkler system. The firefighters opted to use only their hoses, and the fire destroyed all of Stoller’s buildings. Stoller brought a negligence claim against the City of Lowell, alleging that the firefighters were negligent in violating the accepted practice of using an available sprinkler system. The jury returned a verdict for Stoller. However, the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the City of Lowell, finding that discretionary function immunity barred Stoller’s claim.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkins, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 171,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.